Federalist wing of Supreme Court - "Screw your votes"

[pauldun170]

Voted along duechebag lines

The U.S. Supreme Court said Monday that election officials in Pennsylvania can count absentee ballots received as late as the Friday after Election Day so long as they are postmarked by Nov. 3.

In its ruling, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said that ballots could be counted if they were received by 5 p.m. Nov. 6, as long as they were mailed by Election Day, Nov. 3. It also said that ballots without a postmark would "be presumed to have been mailed by Election Day" unless there was strong evidence to the contrary.

Normally, a state supreme court has the last word on state laws. So the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision should have ended the matter. The US Supreme Court's 4-4 decision rejected the appeal, but if the Court had accepted the Pennsylvania Republicans' argument, we would have been in for a whole new wave of federal judicial oversight over election rules. That would spell bad news for state constitutional protection for the right to vote, which is broader than the safeguards afforded under the US Constitution. It could have also thrown Election Day and any post-election disputes into further chaos.

Opinion: The scary part of the Supreme Court ruling on Pennsylvania's mail-in ballots

The Supreme Court rejection of a Republican ploy to have the Court intervene in a case from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is far from a major Democratic win -- and could spell bad news for the future of voting rights protections across the country, writes Joshua A. Douglas

www.cnn.com

Supreme Court Rules Pennsylvania Can Count Ballots Received After Election Day

Pennsylvania Republicans had sought to block the counting of late-arriving ballots, which the state's Supreme Court had approved last month.

www.npr.org

Supreme Court allows Pennsylvania to count ballots received up to 3 days after Election Day

The justices' order establishes the ground rules for mail-in voting in one of the nation's key\u00a0battleground states, with 20 electoral votes.

www.usatoday.com

US supreme court denies Republican bid to limit Pennsylvania mail-in-voting

The US’s highest court is allowing Pennsylvania to count ballots received up to three days after the presidential election

www.theguardian.com

 

[SmCaudata]

The real BD part is that the same justices voted basically in an opposite way on a WI case. The consistency for the conservative justices is in favor of voter suppression. The consistency for the liberal justices is in favor of ensuring all citizens have easy access to voting.

I've been saying it since Bush vs Gore. If you party policies rely on suppressing the vote, your ideas suck.

This more than anything makes me think the dems need to blow some stuff up if they win.
1. Make the presidency a popular vote. This president clearly withholding aid from ble states indicates that for the president to serve the people, he needs to be beholden to the people. He should not be elected by the states. The senate is the state representation.

2. Make mail-in voting with clear rules a federal law. Follow Colorado as an example.

3. Expandd the Supreme Court by 2 seats. Roberts then becomes swing vote again and it restores the balance that the GOP messed up by failing to vote on Garland.

4. Laslty pass a law that states justices must be brought for a vote within 90 days. No more of this abusing the system to block voting for judges.

 

[fskimospy]

Interesting that the states’ rights people and those who frequently cite a prohibition against last minute changes to election procedures as reasons to rule one way or the other decided that they should be able to overrule a state court’s interpretation of the state constitution in order to make last minute changes to election procedures.

I for one am shocked that their commitment to states’ rights was not genuine.

 

[K1052]

The real BD part is that the same justices voted basically in an opposite way on a WI case. The consistency for the conservative justices is in favor of voter suppression. The consistency for the liberal justices is in favor of ensuring all citizens have easy access to voting.

I've been saying it since Bush vs Gore. If you party policies rely on suppressing the vote, your ideas suck.

This more than anything makes me think the dems need to blow some stuff up if they win.
1. Make the presidency a popular vote. This president clearly withholding aid from ble states indicates that for the president to serve the people, he needs to be beholden to the people. He should not be elected by the states. The senate is the state representation.

2. Make mail-in voting with clear rules a federal law. Follow Colorado as an example.

3. Expandd the Supreme Court by 2 seats. Roberts then becomes swing vote again and it restores the balance that the GOP messed up by failing to vote on Garland.

4. Laslty pass a law that states justices must be brought for a vote within 90 days. No more of this abusing the system to block voting for judges.

Roberts would probably help gut any new voting reforms when nobody is looking like he already has done. 13 seat court and dramatically expanded lower fed courts is the only real option here for Dems if they want real durable reforms.

 

[ch33zw1z]

All of a sudden the SCOTUS can tell states what to do regarding elections, interesting.

 

[fskimospy]

Roberts would probably help gut any new voting reforms when nobody is looking like he already has done. 13 seat court and dramatically expanded lower fed courts is the only real option here for Dems if they want real durable reforms.

Yes, Roberts has attacked voting rights and voting reforms at almost every opportunity. While he may not be the unprincipled hack that people like Thomas and Alito are, his principles are in fact very bad.

 

[Grey_Beard]

This is scary. These fools say, “State rights” over and over until they need to support right wing voter suppression to have minority rule. The SCOTUS will become a sham if we do not add more justices.

 

[Jhhnn]

Ugh, gentlemen. The SCOTUS would not overturn the ruling of the PA SCOTUS, affirming states rights. Take it as a win.

 

[SmCaudata]

Ugh, gentlemen. The SCOTUS would not overturn the ruling of the PA SCOTUS, affirming states rights. Take it as a win.

Only because it was 4-4. What do you think would happen with the new judge? Gorsich, who fancies himself a constitutionalist voted to overturn states rights.

 

[Grey_Beard]

Can someone tell why a SC nomination needs to have a television commercial? I have seen about four different versions. They either are qualified or they are not by the advise and consent function of the Senate. What does any of that function of the Senate need a television commercial to the masses? If you need this, it’s very wrong.

 

[Hindsight_2020]

First and foremost, he has to lose. And, not by a little, but by a lot. And, even then, he will refuse to leave.

The reality is that Trump has been planting the seeds of being President for life for a while now. And, not one from the Right (across all branches of government) will stop him.

Romney will just express deep disappointment as Trump appoints Ivanka as the next President after his death.

I have zero faith in the Right doing the proper thing.

 

[Jhhnn]

Only because it was 4-4. What do you think would happen with the new judge? Gorsich, who fancies himself a constitutionalist voted to overturn states rights.

So what? That's not what happened. We need to win this election & deal with it from there. Why the Hell anybody wants to re-fight a battle they already won is mystifying.

 

[Thump553]

Absolutely no constitutional issues involved here at all-was strictly a matter of construing a (very clear) state statute. That four justices thought this case was worthy of taking on shows our new "conservative" court is going to be a very activist court, dictating their demands to the legislature and executive branches, state governments and us mere peons.

 

[Grey_Beard]

Absolutely no constitutional issues involved here at all-was strictly a matter of construing a (very clear) state statute. That four justices thought this case was worthy of taking on shows our new "conservative" court is going to be a very activist court, dictating their demands to the legislature and executive branches, state governments and us mere peons.

Just remember, even lifetime appointments end. There are two who are on the low side and at any point another could pass quite quickly. Not wishing it on anyone, just stating facts.

 

[HomerJS]

PA decided to allow any ballot postmarked by Election Day that shows up to 3 days after to be counted. The 4 conservative justices decided to overrule the State of PA and how they wanted to run their election. How is that not interfering with the will of the people of PA and their legislature? If ACB had been on the bench she likely would have sided with the 4 other conservatives.

So judicial activism is fine as long as judges interfere in states running their elections in favor of Republicans? Didn't we go through this same shit in Bush v Gore? Conservative court interfering in a state run election to hand vote to Republicans. That decision was so fucked up in the decision they stated this is not precedent which is something SCOTUS is supposed to set.

The fix will be in if ACB is seated. Mark my words if the vote is close SCOTUS will hand the election over to Trump. Only a landslide will prevent that.

Trump's war on voting isn't working — but Barrett could change that

Trump is failing to keep people from voting. But if Barrett is confirmed, he still has a shot at stealing this

www.salon.com

 

[Zorba]

"Judaical Activism" and "state's rights" are both terms conservatives use when the feds do something they don't like.

 

[Greenman]

How does establishing a drop dead date for mail in ballots fall under the heading of judicial activism? There is a date by which ballots have to be received, everyone knows what that date is. It's no different than knowing you have to get to the polls by a certain time.

 

[thilanliyan]

How does establishing a drop dead date for mail in ballots fall under the heading of judicial activism? There is a date by which ballots have to be received, everyone knows what that date is. It's no different than knowing you have to get to the polls by a certain time.

Thankfully they did...but that's not the point.

What happened to "State's rights"? Why did 4 conservative justices go AGAINST state's rights? THAT'S the point.

 

[HomerJS]

How does establishing a drop dead date for mail in ballots fall under the heading of judicial activism? There is a date by which ballots have to be received, everyone knows what that date is. It's no different than knowing you have to get to the polls by a certain time.

Fed judges interfering in how states run their election. PA decided Trump fucking with the post office and the pandemic need to use postmark to count vote. Doesn't change the sprit of the drop dead date according to PA

 

[obidamnkenobi]

There is a date by which ballots have to be received,

From where? Is that in the Constitution?
The constitution specify when the electors have to meet, I don't believe it states when the state elections have to be held.

 

[Paratus]

Folks need to understand what was going on. The pretext was whether ballots mailed by Nov3 but received by the 6th should count.
(I believe the federal law says votes must be “cast” by Election Day and state legislatures have the right to govern state elections)

what was also argued at SCOTUS, and the conservatives likely agreed with, was the PA state Supreme Court overstepped it’s bounds when it interpreted what the legislature wanted (to limit votes cast to those received by Nov3) against the PA state constitution and its protections for free/fair voting.

The argument is since federal law states the legislature handles elections the state constitution can’t impact their decisions despite the state legislature having obviously had a hand in drafting and agreeing to abide by the state constitution and their own courts interpretations.

This is to say a very radical position for SCOTUS to potentially take.

 

[senseamp]

Folks need to understand what was going on. The pretext was whether ballots mailed by Nov3 but received by the 6th should count.
(I believe the federal law says votes must be “cast” by Election Day and state legislatures have the right to govern state elections)

what was also argued at SCOTUS, and the conservatives likely agreed with, was the PA state Supreme Court overstepped it’s bounds when it interpreted what the legislature wanted (to limit votes cast to those received by Nov3) against the PA state constitution and its protections for free/fair voting.

The argument is since federal law states the legislature handles elections the state constitution can’t impact their decisions despite the state legislature having obviously had a hand in drafting and agreeing to abide by the state constitution and their own courts interpretations.

This is to say a very radical position for SCOTUS to potentially take.

Democrats can keep dancing around this, but eventually they'll have to pack this court. Better do it ASAP before it rigs elections enough that they can't win anymore.

 

[interchange]

It is hard to say in absolute terms what is represented by judicial activism.

Ostensibly, SCOTUS made this decision because they decided it was the PA Supreme Court which engaged in judicial activism to allow votes received by the 6th to count. Or at least they said the court overlooked or interpreted incorrectly the conflict this created with the state constitution.

This is our challenge. So long as SCOTUS can render a decision which is facially plausible within the letter of the law, what they do is defensively not judicial activism. However, there are quite a number of arguments within the letter of the law that can be used to justify a decision which are applied in bad faith to justify an outcome that they desire.

Thus we are in a position to test our faith. Do we believe the institutions of are government are strong enough to withstand the next year+? Or do we march further toward fascism and/or civil war?

You may argue that this depends on whether our institutions can operate in a way to deserve our faith. Those arguments are wrong. The survival of our government rests on the faith we place in it alone.

Regarding this election, I think Pandora's box is destined to be opened by SCOTUS. I can only hope that this does not change the outcome and the legislature acts to construct a new box.

 

[TheVrolok]

Democrats can keep dancing around this, but eventually they'll have to pack this court. Better do it ASAP before it rigs elections enough that they can't win anymore.

Yep. The Republicans have proven they absolutely do not care about norms or the rights of their constituents. They will break EVERYTHING to maintain/obtain power. The historical norms and decorum that have created some check and balance are demonstrably insufficient.

 

[Greenman]

From where? Is that in the Constitution?
The constitution specify when the electors have to meet, I don't believe it states when the state elections have to be held.

When do we decide who won? Do we just wait until the ballots stop trickling in? Do we have a list of voters and keep going until all the names are checked off? There has to be a due date. There simply isn't any other way to get through the election.